The most important factor in education is parental involvement. The more that parents take responsibility for the education of their
children the better the result. Conversely, the more that parents defer to government to raise their children, the worse the result.
I would create an educational voucher system to give parents the greatest possible control and prioritize educational funds and
objectives to support first home-schooling, then private religious and secular community-based day-schools with high parental
involvement, then charter schools and lastly government schools.

In the government school system I would dramatically streamline our vastly bloated educational bureaucracy to free up funding for
more teachers to reduce class sizes and increase personal attention to students. I would also promote a “cohort” approach in which
groups of students stay together through all the classes of the core curriculum and operate more like a family.

I would create a visiting teaching program to instruct and assist inner-city welfare-dependant families to home school their
children, allowing parents currently under government dependency to use funding available from educational vouchers to teach their
own children, both to strengthen family bonds against the lure of antisocial conduct such as gang membership and to build
self-esteem and the future employment prospects of parents.

I believe the primary factor in educational success is parental involvement and that government is a poor substitute for parents in raising and educating children. I favor an educational choice voucher system that includes home-schooling as one of the choices. I would shift the emphasis of the department of education to helping families guide and direct the education of their own children. I would dramatically downsize the centralized bureaucracy to free money for more teachers and shift control of public schools to cities and towns. In public schools I would launch a pilot project to introduce a cohort educational model in which groups of children stay together for the core curriculum from start to finish like a family rather than taking classes ala carte (except for electives).

I believe in the back-to-basics approach to education along classical lines. Students should be taught how to learn, not what to memorize and given broad freedom and latitude to pursue their own interests within set parameters. I would emphasize critical thinking, debate, research and communications skills in addition to mastery of reading, hard (not soft) science and math. I would require every graduating student to demonstrate familiarity with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and key writings of the Founding Fathers such as the Mayflower Compact and George Washington's Inaugural and Farewell addresses.

I strongly oppose Common Core and believe it takes us in the wrong direction. We need less not more control of schools and children by government bureaucrats.

I strongly support Charter Schools and would like to see more of them and a wider variety of alternative models. I graduated in 1976 from an alternative "Free School" in Greenfield that featured a cohort model of 12 students in a cooperative approach. It was a wonderfully rich and exciting environment in which to learn (especially in comparison to my previous standard high school experience that bored me to tears and inspired me to habitual truancy). I would love to give Massachusetts students the opportunity to experience that sort of self-directed learning in a family-style setting.

Vocational schools fill an important role in our educational system that seems to be working. I would like to see more of them and would also facilitate greater involvement of community businesses and industries to allow for a smoother transition from school to work for students on a vocational track.

I believe it was Aristotle who first said (and was echoed by Cicero) "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat its tragedies." We must inculcate in our students a knowledge of history. Not the modernist liberal edited version they are getting in classes today, but the real stuff, including heavy emphasis on primary sources, especially as regarding early American history. Testing that does not measure familiarity with the truth is worthless.

I strongly support on-line learning, which incidentally is a big part of most home-schools. My educational choice voucher plan would allow parents who do not home-school to direct their children to private religious an secular schools which offer online learning. I would work to promote online learning in the government schools as well.

The more guns in the hands of responsible citizens, the safer we will all be both from criminals and from any power, foreign or domestic, who would seek to subjugate us.Back to top of pageA Comment on the Ferguson, Missouri Events

Equal Justice Under Law is a bedrock principle of our society and must be color-blind. Ferguson is the latest incident where equal justice has
surrendered to mob rule in deference to skin-color. This is reverse racism. Only due process of law can reveal the truth in this case, and both
the White police officer and the Black teen deserve a clean slate on which to be judged -- untarnished by prejudice, prior similar incidents, or
pressure by agitators. Those who exploit this incident as a pretext for violence or theft should be jailed and pay restitution to store owners.Back to top of pageMy Abortion Policy

Public discussion of abortion is nearly always framed solely from the perspective of the unwillingly pregnant woman, and the arguments for allowing abortion are very compelling from that perspective.

Indeed, I myself would be “pro-choice” if it were not for one fact: the act of abortion kills a living human being which science proves and the Bible confirms* is a separate person with his own unique DNA from the moment of conception.Back to top of pageClick here to continue reading ...

The baby’s right to life trumps the unwillingly pregnant woman’s desire not to be pregnant, and all of society has a duty to uphold this essential tenet of civilization with the force of law. Even the secularists of ancient Greece understood this duty, inserting this promise in the famous Hippocratic Oath which all doctors are expected to take:

I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

Abortion is the intentional killing of a living human being and should be criminalized.

Obviously, there is no such law in America today, so this discussion about the terms of the law and punishment for its violation are hypothetical and could only apply to abortions committed in the future, after legislation was enacted. (In reporting on my stance I ask news organizations to include this caveat so that people know I am speaking of hypothetical future acts done with knowledge that they violate the hypothetical future law.)

If I were to participate in the enactment of such a law, I would work to ensure that it carried a serious penalty for anyone who deliberately and with premeditation kills an unborn child. Penalties for abortion related crimes would need to be strong enough to serve as a deterrent to child killing.

A mother or father who voluntarily participates in the abortion of their own child is an accessory to that crime. Although the woman has a special relationship with the baby inside of her, that baby is nevertheless a separate and unique human being, with a right to life. In fact, that special relationship carries a special fiduciary duty of protection. That fiduciary duty extends to the father as well.

Obviously, for the mother, there would be numerous potentially mitigating factors, such as the obvious questions about her mental capacity in even contemplating the killing of her own baby. But under this hypothetical future law, if a woman is fully aware of what she is doing and deliberately causes her child to be murdered, she should face an appropriate punishment.

What punishment would be appropriate for abortion? Since abortion is a form of homicide, it should bear similar punishment, depending on the severity of the particular crime. Homicide penalties range from relatively light sentences for cases of negligence and involuntary manslaughter to quite severe sentences for aggravated murder.

Again, we are talking about hypothetical future crimes occurring after enactment of new laws, and policy makers would need to struggle with the question of appropriate punishments in that process. However, I can say without hesitation that I would support the death penalty for any serial abortionist who intentionally killed unborn babies subsequent to the passage of this law.

In the interim, my goal and indeed my highest priority as Governor of Massachusetts would be to end the practice of baby killing in this commonwealth through every available means within the bounds of law.

I pledge today that I would never sign any state budget that includes a single dime of abortion funding, and if any member of the state legislature were to introduce legislation to recognize the legal personhood of unborn babies I would use the full power of my office to support it.

Lastly, as a pastor with years of counseling experience I know the hurt and shame that both men and women suffer who have aborted their unborn children, as well as the healing power of God’s forgiveness. I would encourage churches to open their doors to those seeking solace from the pain of their wrong choices.

###
* See Genesis 2:24. The term “one flesh” in this verse perfectly characterizes the act of conception in which 23 chromosomes of the man and 23 chromosomes of the woman combine to create a brand new human being with his own unique 46 chromosome DNA blueprint which will define him until natural death in old age.

As in all things, my approach to economics is based on Biblical principles as I understand them. The first principle is that everything we own and all of the natural resources within our reach were created for our use by God to bless us, and He expects us to be good stewards of them as we fully enjoy them. Secondly, we are expected by God to love our neighbors as ourselves in the way we live, and to manage our individual and community finances to provide the greatest amount of blessing to the greatest number of people. Thirdly, as much as is possible we are to do these things voluntarily, not under compulsion, by encouraging individual philanthropy and a shared social ethic of “people before profit.”Back to top of pageClick here to continue reading ...

If these ideas sound appealing, they should. This is the way a “Commonwealth” is intended to work, and every Bay-Stater shares the honor of living in America’s first and best one. Although it’s been a very long time since Massachusetts has actually functioned as a commonwealth, it is our heritage to reclaim whenever we so choose, along with the security and bounty that it produces.

Etymologically, “commonwealth” means “common well-being,” and defines a form of government rooted in a social contract of independent citizen stake-holders, inspired by Acts 2:44-47, in which the early Christian church “held all things in common” for their mutual benefit.
The commonwealth concept is reflected in America’s first constitution, the Mayflower Compact, created by the first colonists of Massachusetts who landed in Plymouth in 1620.

Having come to shore far from the territory which they had covenanted to settle, they found themselves with no legal contract to govern their Plymouth settlement, so they created their own constitution, which said in pertinent part:

“Haveing undertaken, for the glorie of God, and advancemente of the Christian faith, and honour of our king and countrie, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northerne parts of Virginia, doe by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine our selves togeather into a civill body politick, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to enacte, constitute and frame shuch just and equall lawes, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for the generall good of the Colonie, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.”

On that legal bedrock was eventually laid the foundation-stone of the Declaration of Independence, which in turn under-girds the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, that Plymouth settlement eventually birthed the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” and generation after generation of our forebears inherited that common wealth and re-invested it wisely.

Somewhere along the way, however, our “common wealth” got hijacked by Marxism-inspired “statists” who believe that human rights are derived from the state and not from God. Thanks to them we now have a massive centralized government with near-dictatorial power, steered from behind the scenes (ironically for a Marxist system) by lobbyists of super-rich predatory corporations.

The old Massachusetts of self-sufficient local communities surrounded by healthy family farms, and vibrant cities with job-rich home-grown industries is gone. It has been replaced by a form of police-state-enforced neo-feudalism in which the average citizen serves as a paycheck-to-paycheck serf in one of countless multi-national chain-store operations (which ship local money out-of-state) and much of the remainder of the population are semi-permanent government dependents, corralled in “catfish farms“ like Springfield which serve as conduits to siphon federal entitlement program dollars into the state treasury. The more dependents, the more dollars, with dependents who quality for multiple entitlement programs providing the real “gravy train.” (And, of course, part of the dependency-culture strategy is to convince the dependents that they cannot survive without their big-government Democrat patrons.)

The “lucky” few who still own their own local businesses are taxed and regulated into a different form of slavery. This is, incidentally, a key component of the fascist economic model. In contrast to its Marxist cousin Communism, which prohibits all private property, Fascism allows citizens to retain nominal ownership of business entities, but only under strict de-facto government control through regulations and taxation. This is definitely not the system we inherited from our freedom-loving Founders.

The only people doing truly well in Massachusetts (other than the elites) seem to be unionized government employees locked in a dysfunctional co-dependent relationship with the controlling Democrat machine, trading their massive voting power for ever-higher pension benefits and other perqs at the public expense (which any third grader with a calculator can see will eventually bankrupt Massachusetts in the same way it bankrupted Detroit).

It’s a seriously broken system. How do we fix it?
Most importantly, we need to get our thinking straight. If we really want to solve the crisis we need to stop following the model that doesn’t work and go back to the one that did! We need to return to the Biblical commonwealth model that served our ancestors so very well. I will address specific policies in future articles but for now I will paint my solution to the current crisis in broad strokes.

First, our economic policies should emphasize and maximize personal control and personal responsibility in our work and finances. We should encourage entrepreneurialism, innovation, and the right to contract, with minimal government interference. We should prefer local individual and family-owned businesses over large corporations, and local control over centralized government. We should shrink and streamline government, and unambiguously redefine its role as a servant of the people, not our master, with limited, delegated powers.Second, we should treat all citizens as stakeholders, not serfs and dependents. The more that people have a genuine stake in the system the more they care about making it work right. Every citizen should be a taxpayer, and every taxpayer should know exactly how much of their money is going into the government coffers, with transparency and simplicity in the budget and a clear, observable relationship between the taxes being raised and the expenditures based upon them. (No hidden slush funds!!) We should reorganize every agency that is related to the entitlement system and devote a portion of their resources to maximizing self-sufficiency and independence from government among the people it now enslaves under the guise of service.Third and finally, we should abolish public-employee unions and return to the earlier model in which public service was a civic duty and privilege shared by the citizens. While I am a strong supporter of voluntary private-sector unions, I view public employee unions as unconstitutional and implicitly corrupt because both negotiating parties are employees of the government and thus sit on the same side of the bargaining table, while the tax-paying public is forced to pay the tab. (It’s just another form of taxation without representation.) I say keep the workers and pay them well, but get rid of the unions. As an interim step, I would create a citizen oversight committee with the power to refer any questionable union contract line-items to the voters in the form of a referendum.

While I place the larger share of blame for the current mess on the Democrats, the Republican Party establishment is culpable as well. By “establishment” I mean primarily the amoral fat cat corporatists who dominate the Chamber of Commerce, and therefore the GOP. These, represented by the lobbyists mentioned above, serve as the dance partners of the Democrat political machine. Indeed, if you’ve ever wondered why the Massachusetts GOP doesn’t seem to try very hard to win elections or to cultivate its conservative base, it may be because the corporate interests of the establishment “elite” are served nearly as well by lobbying Democrat administrations as Republican ones.
Both parties put on a good show during the election season, but in this neo-feudal system, the “consumers” are to the Republicrat corporatist elite what the “dependents” are to the Demublican socialist elite: just a source of steady income. In the end the Donkey and the Elephant are content to graze side-by-side from the same “commons,” the grass-roots of both parties under their feet, along with the poor, the middle-class, small businesses, and the politically un-enrolled majority.

My goal as an independent candidate for governor is to revive public awareness of what we have lost in allowing our commonwealth to be transformed into a two-party oligarchy of the super-rich, and to lead a peaceful revolution to take it back.

When I was practicing in the areas of constitutional and family law in California, I guided my law firm by Micah 6:8:
“He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

The Bible teaches us to balance justice with mercy, remembering that we are accountable to God for our actions. As governor, I would attempt to keep this balance in my approach to issues of law and justice by following several key presuppositions:Back to top of pageClick here to continue reading ...

A. That all law is a reflection of an underlying worldview about the nature of man and the responsibilities we owe to each other. My worldview is Biblical, so I believe that God is good, but that human beings are by nature not good and must be inspired and guided to rise above their inherent selfishness. As Katherine Hepburn famously said to Humphrey Bogart in The African Queen, “Human nature, Mr. Olnut, is what we were put on this earth to rise above.”

I know, as does any honest observer with genuine knowledge of what the Bible actually teaches, that following God’s guidance always produces good results but rejecting His guidance always produces bad results. I also believe that human beings, regardless of their circumstances, background or temptations, have free choice in their conduct and earn credit or blame based on what they do, not what group or class they belong to.

B. That all written law rests upon unwritten principles that are more important that the law itself. The letter of the law must always be subservient to the spirit of the law and not the reverse. This is the genius of the common law (which is rooted in the Bible), and the fatal flaw of modern statutory law (rooted in the religion of secular humanism), which now requires tens of thousands of volumes of law books to regulate what the was once far more effectively regulated with just a few.

Indeed, under the simple logic of the common law, the legislators who now continuously heap massive piles of regulations onto our backs without even reading the bills, would rightly be jailed for malfeasance.

C. That no amount of law is capable of controlling people who have no self-restraint. Any government that fails to inculcate personal responsibility and morality in the populace through its policies (primarily by strengthening families, where these values are most easily transmitted) will breed increasing lawlessness matched by increasing police-state totalitarianism, as we are now witnessing with our own eyes. Secularism (by definition morally relativistic) is incapable of imparting what it does not possess, so to reverse the present crisis we need to revive the fully constitutional Judeo-Christian moral culture that animated our jurisprudence in the common law era, and strengthen the natural family.

D. That the goal of the law should be to protect and preserve civilization (Romans 13:1-4): to deter evil to the extent possible, and repair whatever damage it causes. Justice should be restorative, seeking not only to make victims whole but to rehabilitate criminals through just punishment and restitution. True rehabilitation is the product of improved character and morality which is learned by encountering true justice and yielding to it.

E. That crime, especially violent crime, is disproportionately a problem of bad behavior by males, but strong, fatherly male authority figures with good moral character, in the home and in the community, are the best deterrence to destructive behavior by boys and other men. We should dismantle the destructive feminist system of emasculating boys with pharmaceuticals and gender-blending social engineering tactics in public schools and the popular culture, and restore key elements of what feminists derisively call the “patriarchal society,” but which in reality is just respect for authentic male leadership.

Following these presuppositions I would make it my first priority to prevent crime by restoring clear-cut moral precepts to guide the citizenry, especially young people, drawing upon the tried and true principles of the common law, and by restoring respect for masculinity and male authority in the home and the community. This is primarily the role of the church, but government has an important part to play as well, as our state and national history proves.

Second, I would demilitarize all but the SWAT and related units of the police departments and return to the model of community policing when cops were members of the local community devoted to public service to their neighbors. I would take most police officers off (non-highway) construction-safety duties (which could just as easily be handled by unskilled workers or people sentenced to community service), increase their pay and convert them to beat cops, training some in techniques for teaching ethics and character skills to at risk youth. I would deploy them in troubled neighborhoods to integrate with the local community and develop relationships with everyone, especially at-risk young people.

My emphasis for law enforcement at the front-line community level would be to help people learn and follow the law like neighbors helping neighbors, not to find and punish infractions like hunters after prey. (In my view law enforcement should not be used as a revenue stream for government and I would, for example, ban fines for first-time violations of red light cameras and ticket quotas for traffic offenses.)

I would liason these officers with the probation departments, family courts, and the public schools to create an integrated network of adults dedicated to steering young people away from gangs, drugs and crime. I would create squads of high-visibility officers to set up mobile side-walk interaction centers wherever street-level criminals congregate, to engage people in conversations about strategies and tactics for improving peoples lives and the safety of the community (like white-blood cells swarming pathogens in the bloodstream).

Third, I would dramatically liberalize gun ownership policies and the issuance of conceal carry permits, and institute free public classes on self-defense and gun safety taught by officers of the community policing force. I would support the use of lethal force in home invasion crimes and car-jackings by armed criminals and conduct a public service advertising campaign warning criminals of the existence of this law and their risk in violating it. In my view the greatest deterrence to criminal predators is the fear that their intended victims could be armed and willing to fight back.

Fourth, I would end the system of warehousing criminals at vast public expense and limit that containment remedy to only those criminals who represent a genuine danger to the public and tie all privileges in these facilities to good behavior. I would convert some of our prisons to work centers where prisoners would live under Spartan conditions while they work to pay restitution to the victims of their own crimes and other victims of crime in which the offenders were not captured, as well as their own incarceration expenses. I would dramatically expand community service programs as a remedy for minor offenses.

Fifth, I would favor the death penalty for first degree murder where the Biblical condition of two or more witnesses is the basis for conviction.

Sixth, I would create separate legal tracks and facilities for dealing with crimes related to substance abuse and domestic violence respectively and integrate therapy with incarceration (except in situations involving more serious offenses that warrant long-term incarceration).

Seventh and finally, I would implement a restorative justice model for prisons along the lines of that advocated by the late Charles Colson of Prison Ministries, which I will detail in a later article. In short, it focuses on transforming criminals into healthy and productive citizens by helping them to repair the damage they have caused to their families and to society, as well as to repair the broken foundations of their own lives and character.Finished reading

My Policy on Drugs
I was an alcoholic and drug addict for 16 years, from the age of 12 to 28, so this is very personal to me. I surrendered my life to Jesus Christ in 1986 and was miraculously healed and delivered, never to feel a desire for any drug or alcohol ever since.

The primary cause of drug addiction is family breakdown, but there are other sources of life trauma that create the same vulnerability.. Drugs are just a way to cope with the pain of life. The most important step to remedy the drug epidemic is to strengthen marriage and the natural family so that children grow up in stable homes with a Mom and Dad who love them.

For the present generation we need to provide more treatment options with a more holistic approach. I would require all persons receiving any form of government assistance to be free from any form of substance abuse. Those who cannot sustain recovery on their own would be required to enroll in supervised residential recovery to continue to receive government assistance.

I would create a bounty system on drug dealers to incentivize citizen intervention in the drug culture. The higher the level of the dealer, the higher the bounty. I would fund the bounty system with money taken from drug traffickers. I would double the bounty for any police officer or public official caught participating in drug trafficking.Back to top of pageRegarding my views on Islam, I stand with Dutch Member of Parliament Gert Wilders.
MP Wilder's speech of September 4, 2014 to the Dutch Paliament:

Madam Speaker, actually I was expecting flowers from you. I am celebrating an anniversary these days. Exactly ten years and two days ago, I left a party whose name I cannot immediately remember. During these ten years and two days. I have been much criticized. Most importantly for always saying the same thing.

My critics are right. Indeed, my message had been the same during all these years. And today, I will repeat the same message about Islam again. For the umpteenth time. As I have been doing for ten years and two days.

I have been vilified for my film Fitna. And not just vilified, but even prosecuted. Madam Speaker, while not so many years ago, everyone refused to broadcast my film Fitna, we can today watch Fitna 2, 3, 4 and 5 daily on our television screens. It is not a clash of civilizations that is going on, but a clash between barbarism and civilization.

The Netherlands has become the victim of Islam because the political elite looked away. Here, in these room, they are all present, here and also in the Cabinet, all these people who looked away. Every warning was ignored.Back to top of pageClick here to continue reading ...

As a result, also in our country today, Christians are being told: "We want to murder you all." Jews receive death threats. Swastika flags at demonstrations, stones go through windows, Molotov cocktails, Hitler salutes are being made, macabre black ISIS flags wave in the wind, we hear cries, such as "F-ck the Talmud," on the central square in Amsterdam.

Indeed, Madam Speaker, this summer, Islam came to us.

In all naivety, Deputy Prime Minister Asscher states that there is an "urgent demand" from Muslims to "crack down" on this phenomenon. Last Friday, in its letter to Parliament, the Cabinet wrote that jihadists are hardly significant. They are called a "sect", and a "small" group.

This is what those who look away wish, these deniers of the painful truth for ten years and two days, the ostrich brigade Rutte 2.

But the reality is different. According to a study, 73% of all Moroccans and Turks in the Netherlands are of the opinion that those who go to Syria to fight in the jihad are "heroes." People whom they admire.

And this is not a new phenomenon. Thirteen years ago, 3,000 people died in the attacks of 9/11. We remember the images of burning people jumping from the twin towers. Then, also, three-quarters of the Muslims in the Netherlands condoned this atrocity. That is not a few Muslims, but hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Netherlands condoning terrorism and saying jihadists are heroes. I do not make this up. It has been investigated. It is a ticking time bomb.

Madam Speaker, is it a coincidence that for centuries Muslims were involved in all these atrocities? No, it is not a coincidence. They simply act according to their ideology. According to Islam, Allah dictated the truth to Muhammad, "the perfect man." Hence, whoever denies the Koran, denies Allah. And Allah leaves no ambiguity about what he wants. Here are a few quotes from the Quran:
Surah 8 verse 60: "Prepare to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah."

Surah 47 verse 4: "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks". We see it every day in the news.

Another quote from Allah is Surah 4 verse 89: "So take not friends from the ranks of the unbelievers, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them."

Madam Speaker, the Koran on the table before you is a handbook for terrorists. Blood drips from its pages. It calls for perpetual war against non-believers. That Koran before you is the hunting permit for millions of Muslims. A license to kill. That book is the Constitution of the Islamic State. What ISIS does is what Allah commands.

This bloodthirsty ideology was able to nestle in the Netherlands because our elites looked away. Neighborhoods such as Schilderswijk, Transvaal, Crooswijk, Slotervaart, Kanaleneiland, Huizen, you name it. There, the caliphate is under construction; there, the Islamic State is in preparation.

During the past ten years and two days , the ostrich Cabinets did nothing. It has nothing to do with Islam, they lied to the people. Imagine them having to tell the truth.

But the people have noticed. Two thirds of all Dutch say that the Islamic culture does not belong in the Netherlands. Including the majority of the electorate of the Labour Party, the majority of the voters of the VVD, the majority of the voters of the CDA, and all the voters of the PVV.

The voters demand that, after ten years and two days of slumber, measures are finally taken. The voters demand that something effective happen. No semi-soft palliatives. Allow me to make a few suggestions to the away-with-us mafia. Here are a few things which should happen starting today:

Recognize that Islam is the problem. Start the de-Islamization of the Netherlands. Less Islam.

Close every Salafist mosque which receives even a penny from the Gulf countries. Deprive all jihadists of their passports, even if they only have a Dutch passport. Let them take an ISIS passport.

Do not prevent jihadists from leaving our country. Let them leave, with as many friends as possible. If it helps, I am even prepared to go to Schiphol [airport] to wave them goodbye. But let them never come back. That is the condition. Good riddance.

And, as far as I am concerned, anyone who expresses support for terror as a means to overthrow our constitutional democracy has to leave the country at once. If you are waving an ISIS flag you are waving an exit ticket. Leave! Get out of our country!

Madam Speaker, war has been declared against us. We have to strike back hard. Away with these people! Enough is enough!

My views on LGBT issues are rooted in the Bible. I am deeply concerned for those who self-identify as homosexuals, bisexuals and transgender because the Bible warns that they will suffer great harm, both physically and spiritually. Honest observers can attest that the validity of this warning is manifest around us.

In the physical, Romans 1:26-27 cautions that people who indulge in voluntary homosexual acts “receive in themselves the penalty of their error which is due.” In other words, there are natural consequences to the body that result from sexual deviance. AIDS and other sexually-transmitted diseases are obvious examples, but even mental health problems can be associated with homosexuality, as the medical community once acknowledged before the age of bullying-enforced political correctness.
In the spiritual, I Corinthians 6:9-11 asks “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [male transgenders], nor homosexuals…will inherit the Kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God.” This passage not only shows the severe spiritual consequences of homosexual sin, it also proves that there were spiritually-delivered “ex-gays” in the church from its very earliest days.

The Bible also teaches the principle of free will and so my policies will attempt to strike a balance between the social duty to discourage harmful conduct with the right of people to choose to harm themselves.

Our society continually wrestles with this type of contest in regulating conduct as diverse as cigarette smoking, traffic safety (e.g. seat-belts and helmets) and what we eat. Sexual conduct has an arguably greater impact on public health than the above, but it is unarguably a matter of public concern and an appropriate area for responsible regulation.

If elected governor, I will pursue the following changes in the law:

1) Protection of Children from LGBT Propaganda.

Despite decades of intensive effort, the LGBT community has never proved that homosexuality, bisexuality or transgenderism are innate or unchangeable. They bear that burden because they are trying to change age-old, foundational social policy based on that radical hypothesis (over the vigorous objection of a large portion of the population who are predicting serious, perhaps catastrophic results for family-based civilization). Since they can’t prove their hypothesis, existing social policy that prefers the natural family and authentic marriage must not be changed.

Since they cannot prove that homosexuality, bisexuality and transgender is innate and unchangeable, we must assume for the sake of the children that these behavior-based lifestyles are acquired, and can be overcome. We must at minimum protect children from politically-motivated campaigns to encourage them (overtly or covertly) to experiment with same-sex conduct or to self-identify as homosexual, bisexual or transgender.

Importantly, self-serving anecdotal testimonies of self-identified LGBT members, to the effect that they feel they were “born gay,” is not evidence. Neither is ridicule of the proposition that homosexuals can change an argument on which to base public policy. Without clear objective proof any hypothesis fails, as this one clearly had done.

I will work to pass a law following the Russian model of banning the promotion of non-traditional lifestyles to minors, a law for which I advocated while in Russia and the former Soviet Union in 2006 and 2007. Lets rescue our children from being guinea pigs in a disastrous social experiment.

2) The Separation of LGBT and STATE.

In many ways the LGBT movement is the anti-church. While there are some people who claim to be “Gay Christians,” the LGBT movement as a whole largely defines itself by contrasting the “gay” agenda with the Christian agenda. Nearly every legal, social and political battle in American society today pits LGBT activists against Christians.

In and of itself, the contest between LGBT activists and Christians is not a problem. Questions about the Christian heritage of the United States aside, we are a nation based in substantial part on the theory of a social contract whose terms are set by the people. Vigorous public debate about what our public policy should be is healthy and beneficial.

The problem is that government has put its thumb on the scale favoring the LGBT agenda, while Christians are limited by the so-called “Separation of Church and State,” a phrase not found in our constitution, but which has nevertheless been determined by activist judges to be the law of the land.

I propose this playing field be leveled by the establishment of a new legal doctrine creating the “Separation of LGBT and State.”

The government should be prohibited from promoting LGBT political goals or philosophy in precisely the same way that it is prohibited from promoting religion. Under my policy proposal, individual freedom of speech and association would be preserved, providing a balance between the needs of public health and private rights. For example, government would no longer be allowed to promote the legitimacy of homosexual, bisexual and transgender conduct in public schools, but students could still form student clubs based on their personal choices. Activists could still hold public parades, but government officials would be restricted from marching in their official capacity. LGBT groups could establish community organizations, but no taxpayer money could be used to create or support them except where the purpose and function of the organization was segregated from LGBT ideology (similar to the way that the Salvation Army’s government subsidized social service programs cannot promote religion).

In every way that Christianity is restricted in public life, the LGBT agenda should be restricted.

3) Supremacy of the First Amendment

I would establish a policy throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that in any conflict between the First Amendment and Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs), the First Amendment must take precedence. To begin with, I would amend all existing SORs with the following clause:

“In no circumstance shall sexual orientation regulations supersede the First Amendment rights of individuals, churches and religious organizations to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

“For the purpose of this statute religious organizations are those whose policies or culture are substantially influenced by religious values, including but not limited to Christian bookstores, adoption agencies, hospitals, businesses, social organizations and student clubs on college campuses.”

This “First Amendment Supremacy Clause” (FASC) is designed to ensure that the first principles of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, namely religious liberty and freedom of expression, are preserved and honored as essential values deeply rooted in our history and laws, as against the claims and reach of the newly invented category of law known as Sexual Orientation Regulations. It is the purpose of this legislation to clearly recognize and affirm that laws and policies based on sexual orientation, gender identity or like terms have no power to infringe upon or otherwise restrict the inalienable rights of Americans which are enshrined in the First Amendment, and which many generations of our citizens have shed their precious blood to protect.

FASC does not prohibit laws or polices designed to protect homosexuals and other persons who define themselves by the practice of non-traditional sexual conduct from discrimination, and is only triggered when a claim is asserted that SORs should trump the First Amendment. In other words whenever there is a contest in which one class of rights must win at the expense of the other, the First Amendment must be held supreme.

Importantly, FASC is a complete barrier to the use of SORs as a sword to attack religious freedom and freedom of speech, which has happened all too frequently in recent years, but FASC preserves the use of SORs as a shield against irrational discrimination. FASC recognizes that individuals and religious organization have the same status as churches in the assertion of First Amendment rights.

Advocating for FASC in this election and the public conversation afterward will bring clarity to the debate over so-called “gay rights,” helping to illuminate what is actually in conflict and at stake in this debate. It thus will help voters, policy makers and judges better weigh competing claims of rights and recognize the far-reaching consequences of their decisions.

Conclusion:
I believe these three policy goals will substantially strengthen the family foundations of the Commonwealth to the betterment of all.Finished reading

My Position on ImmigrationRescue Obama’s ‘Human Shields’ and Send Them Home with Escorts

There’s a long line at the Registry of Motor Vehicles. You’ve been patiently waiting your turn for what seems like hours, with a handful of paperwork you painstaking filled out before you got into line. Suddenly a new group of people come in and walk right to the front of the line. You think they’re going to cut in and you start to join the grumbling of the other people in line with you, when suddenly the RMV supervisor steps up to the counter and starts handing out free passes to all the people in the new group. They don’t even have to deal with the clerk. “No waiting. No paperwork. No scrutiny. No regulations. No consequences,” says the supervisor, “in fact, you can use these free passes to get every sort of social service benefits for you and your family at no cost to you.”
Still in line, fuming, you feel like a chump for following the rules.

I call it the Bush/Obama “scheme” but its really more of a conspiracy. The Democrat and Republican globalist “elites” want a borderless North American Union along the model of the European Union and they’re determined to have it, constitution be damned. Bush 41 started in with NAFTA, Bush 43 continued it with a law granting special “free pass” status to minors seeking asylum in the US, and Obama intends to complete the process with a tidal wave of minors recruited from Central America and shipped to the border on NAFTA’s Kansas City Southern de Mexico railway line (an American company). Kudos to Phyllis Schlafly for a great article on this.

It’s the old Marxist tactic of fomenting chaos to destabilize the system you want to convert to Socialist control. But even worse, this particular destabilization effort creates its chaos by using children as "political human shields"!

The political elites whom I believe have orchestrated this sudden wave of "refugees" to coincide with President Obama's adoption of Amnesty as his domestic priority are just like the Hamas terrorists who use innocents as human shields in Gaza. These children are pawns in an evil game designed to exploit our humanity and use it against us. It is the worst form of manipulation because it traps the good guys in a complex lose/lose moral dilemma. Do we protect ourselves from an insidious attack on our social order and its legal underpinnings by heartlessly turning foreign children away at the border? Or do we abandon the notion of national sovereignty and the rule of law out of genuine compassion for innocents being exploited as political pawns? To borrow the language of our Founders: “A pox on those who hatched this devilish plot!”

In my view we have no choice but to care for these children because they are innocent, but we must work diligently to return them and every illegal immigrant to their country of origin so they can get in line behind the law abiding applicants who are seeking entry properly.

Rather than rewarding those who gained (or gamed) their entry to the United States by cheating (I'm speaking now of the adults who have been here for a long time), it is time to ask the illegal immigrants to take all that they have learned about living in an orderly democratic society back to their homelands so they can recreate there what they have enjoyed here.
Frankly, it is these very adults who are most responsible for these children and other neighbors they left behind in the selfish pursuit of their own prosperity. It is they who set the bad example that these children are now following. Send them all back together -- the long-term illegals serving as escorts for the children -- along with whatever assistance they all need to get settled back in to their communities. (It won’t cost even a fraction of what we’ll pay if they stay here). And perhaps back there we can help them establish for their children a semblance of what our parents and grandparents created for us here in the U.S..

If any case, they can at any time and for any reason get back in line and seek entry legally.Finished reading

Q: Are you concerned about the amount of money in politics and what would you do to promote policies to limit its influence in elections and governing?A: Yes, but I don't think there is any silver bullet to solve the problem of money in political campaigns. The wealthy always find a way to get around the rules, including the purchase of media organizations which subtly manipulate the voters through propaganda in the guise of news. The only real defense to such manipulation is an electorate possessed of good critical thinking skills, which unfortunately are no longer taught in our public schools.

One way to reduce the imbalance caused by money would be to expand the scope of the official Massachusetts voter guide to give candidates equal space for a final message to the voters in print, video and electronic formats, and concurrently to impose a moratorium on all print and broadcast political advertising for, say, five days before the election. The voters would get a respite from advertising bombardment and could better weigh the arguments as presented side by side and in balance in the voter guides.

Q: Do you support public financing of elections? Please be specific about which offices it should cover and any other information about what kind of support should be provided.A: I support the existing public financing option available in Massachusetts.

Q: Do you support a constitutional amendment to allow the government to limit political spending and to clarify that corporations do not have the same rights as people? Why or why not.A: Yes. The legal fiction that corporations are people has some utility in the business world, but granting these artificial persons equal rights in the political process alongside natural persons tends to degrade and corrupt the process.

Q: What would you do to bring more transparency to government operations?A: My first order of business as Governor would be to open all the books and all the processes of government to public scrutiny, and to establish citizen oversight panels to find and expose waste, fraud and abuse. I would create an interactive website to facilitate citizen networking in this task and assign full-time staff to maximize its reach and impact. I would concurrently assign attorneys to initiate prosecution of malefactors as they were exposed.

Q: The legislature passed a terrific elections bill earlier this year that will make great steps towards modernizing our elections. Would you support Election Day registration for the commonwealth? Is there anything else you think we should do to improve our elections in Massachusetts?A: No. Election day registration is a recipe for voter fraud. I would keep the current voter registration deadline and require voter identification at the polls. The biggest problem with the current voting process is not the election rules, it is voter apathy and disgust caused by the perception, largely correct, that most of the politicians in the two-party system are corrupt and nothing will really change by voting for one batch of crooks over the other.

Q: What do you think should be done, if anything, about the issue of political patronage?A: The only solution to political patronage is to elect a governor who uses a strict merit-based approach to appointments and hiring. I believe I am the only candidate in this field committed to doing that.